Arsenal Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 12/13 MOD POST #232

jordainius · 10-11-2012 01:19AM

Deleted User wrote: »

+ we've been playing him in a position he is not comfortable with. He is a striker and nothing else. Since Henry we havent had that type of player who can hammer the last man. Fact is Arsene Wenger is now managing Arsenal against logic and the 'financial situation' is just an excuse. If we are the attacking team he thinks we are then he would play Giroud and Walcott/Podolski up front (perhaps even one of Walcott/Pod just behind) Instead he wants to go against the grain.

Im starting to wonder is his ego gone totally out of control. Arsenal were defending solidly the first 3 or 4 games but now we've reverted to type A.

If players cant psyche themselves up to play Man United then i have to wonder about the future of Arsene Wenger. We often beat them with sh*t teams or at least went down trying. Unfortunately Wenger seems untouchable and the club will continue to suffer while he fails to adapt to the situations around him.

The financial situation is not entirely an excuse. Wengers problem is that he's making the financial side of things his problem, he's on the same page as the board and the board will repay this by having absolute faith in him.

He shouldn't give a **** about the financial side of things. The finances are the boards problem, Wengers job is to assemble the best team he possibly can and to keep his best players, something he did fairly well for his first 8/9 years. He should be putting pressure on the board to make money available to buy players and he should be demanding that players of a certain calibre get paid the type of contract that will keep them happy.

The problem with Wenger is that somewhere along the line he became way too concerned with the financial side of things and placed way too much emphasis on youth to the point that he was willing to let our best players leave as he believed in promoting good young prospects at the first opportunity in order to not "kill" that young player as he has said many times over the years.

This is a man who in his first 8 years kept Seaman, Dixon, Winterburn, Keown, Adams, Bould and Bergkamp at the club as long as he possibly could, regardless of their age and the fact that he has promising young players waiting in the wings. Back then, it was up to these young players to work their way onto the team, there was no such thing as pushing Martin Keown out the door in order to aid Matthew Upson's development for example.

This is also a man who fought tooth and nail to keep wantaway players at the club (Patrick Vieira wanted to leave loads of times), but since 2005 the emphasis has no longer been on retaining the best players, it has been on taking the money as soon as the player decides he wants to go.

Wenger is capable of spending crazy (signed 9 players I think the summer before the 1998 double and went nuts in 2001 to sign Campbell, Inamoto, van Bronckhorst, Wright and Jeffers for big money on big contracts with a massive signing on fee in Campbells case- again a busy summer led to a double).

The problem with Wenger since 2005 is that he's all too happy to operate just how the board want him to, which makes him unsackable as they have a manager who wont put pressure on them to loosen the purse strings.

For the record; I don't want him gone despite my criticisms of him.

10-11-2012 01:44AM

jordainius wrote: »

The financial situation is not entirely an excuse. Wengers problem is that he's making the financial side of things his problem, he's on the same page as the board and the board will repay this by having absolute faith in him.

He shouldn't give a **** about the financial side of things. The finances are the boards problem, Wengers job is to assemble the best team he possibly can and to keep his best players, something he did fairly well for his first 8/9 years. He should be putting pressure on the board to make money available to buy players and he should be demanding that players of a certain calibre get paid the type of contract that will keep them happy.

The problem with Wenger is that somewhere along the line he became way too concerned with the financial side of things and placed way too much emphasis on youth to the point that he was willing to let our best players leave as he believed in promoting good young prospects at the first opportunity in order to not "kill" that young player as he has said many times over the years.

This is a man who in his first 8 years kept Seaman, Dixon, Winterburn, Keown, Adams, Bould and Bergkamp at the club as long as he possibly could, regardless of their age and the fact that he has promising young players waiting in the wings. Back then, it was up to these young players to work their way onto the team, there was no such thing as pushing Martin Keown out the door in order to aid Matthew Upson's development for example.

This is also a man who fought tooth and nail to keep wantaway players at the club (Patrick Vieira wanted to leave loads of times), but since 2005 the emphasis has no longer been on retaining the best players, it has been on taking the money as soon as the player decides he wants to go.

Wenger is capable of spending crazy (signed 9 players I think the summer before the 1998 double and went nuts in 2001 to sign Campbell, Inamoto, van Bronckhorst, Wright and Jeffers for big money on big contracts with a massive signing on fee in Campbells case- again a busy summer led to a double).

The problem with Wenger since 2005 is that he's all too happy to operate just how the board want him to, which makes him unsackable as they have a manager who wont put pressure on them to loosen the purse strings.

For the record; I don't want him gone despite my criticisms of him.

I cant disagree with you. He is a financial controller/manager but in fairness when you look at the players currently on the books on big wages you'd have to wonder. Had we not being turning a profit at this stage he'd be out the door. Yes he has been stung when he has spent big like the case of Reyes, Jeffers, Arshavin and to a lesser degree Wiltord.

He signed perhaps too many of a young age profile and the older players he signed like Rosicky, Arshavin, etc; offer no leadership.

Also he is a bit like the girl who takes a fancy to the local bad boy and vows to change him like in the case of Adebayor and Anelka(failure albeit a hefty transfer fee) and Van Persie (who was a success)

My big criticism of Wenger is the fact that Denis Bergkamp and Martin Keown who have all their coaching badges were not snapped up by the club or even Patrick Vieira. Surely the expertise these guys would bring would be priceless to a team going forward. It would seem he doesn't want to be questioned which is why Steve Bould who had implemented a lot of work during the summer has seen it all overturned by 'le boss'

10-11-2012 01:57AM

The 9 players he signed during the summer of 1997

Christophre Wreh
Luis Boamorte
Manu Petit
Gilles Grimandi
Marc Overmars
Nicolas Anelka * (Signed Jan 1996)
Alberto Mendez
Matt Upson
Jehad Muntasser (who??)
Alex Manninger (March 1997)

Apart from Muntasser from Gaddafi country and Mendez the Spanish/German, the rest were a relative success ( but in the case of Petit, Grimandi, Overmars and Anelka a considerable success). The spend on all wasnt really huge. Overmars only cost 5.5m. He is the player that Theo should really model himself on.

Manninger i felt was very unfortunate as he done exceptional when he had to deputise for Seaman who was English Number 1 at the time. Mendez was a small costing gamble who didnt pay off. Wreh i cant help feeling could have offered more when you think Boamorte who wasnt as good went on to have a decent career. Muntasser i havent a clue about
Gilles was always dependable and solid. I always liked him. I see alot of him in Kocielcny for some reason. Anelka was a pr*ck.
Upson had promise but always injured while Boamorte was like a gun shy dog in front of goal. Just didnt have the bite.

10-11-2012 01:57AM

Deleted User wrote: »

It would seem he doesn't want to be questioned which is why Steve Bould who had implemented a lot of work during the summer has seen it all overturned by 'le boss'

What's this now?

10-11-2012 02:01AM

Deleted User wrote: »

What's this now?

Im not the biggest fan of Stewart Robson but id actually buy into his theory that Steve Bould's impact has suddenly being minimalised at the club by Wenger.

Wenger considers himself an evolutionary coach but yet Arsenal have made very similar mistakes in games the last 7 years. They say the definition of madness is to do the same thing and expect different results but thats exactly what we've been doing

jordainius · 10-11-2012 02:12AM

Deleted User wrote: »

The 9 players he signed during the summer of 1997

Christophre Wreh
Luis Boamorte
Manu Petit
Gilles Grimandi
Marc Overmars
Nicolas Anelka * (Signed Jan 1996)
Alberto Mendez
Matt Upson
Jehad Muntasser (who??)
Alex Manninger (March 1997)

Apart from Muntasser from Gaddafi country and Mendez the Spanish/German, the rest were a relative success ( but in the case of Petit, Grimandi, Overmars and Anelka a considerable success). The spend on all wasnt really huge. Overmars only cost 5.5m. He is the player that Theo should really model himself on.

Manninger i felt was very unfortunate as he done exceptional when he had to deputise for Seaman who was English Number 1 at the time. Mendez was a small costing gamble who didnt pay off. Wreh i cant help feeling could have offered more when you think Boamorte who wasnt as good went on to have a decent career. Muntasser i havent a clue about
Gilles was always dependable and solid. I always liked him. I see alot of him in Kocielcny for some reason. Anelka was a pr*ck.
Upson had promise but always injured while Boamorte was like a gun shy dog in front of goal. Just didnt have the bite.

Ahhh, nothin like a bit of nostalgia! The net spend wasn't huge, but signing on fees must have accumulated nicely. And I think Paul Merson was about the only player sold (it broke my 12 year old heart to see him go at the time :P)

BoaMorte, Wreh and Manninger looked like they would be class whan they played that season, from the next season they were rubbish (for us) unfortunately!

Marty McFly · 10-11-2012 02:12AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Overmars only cost 5.5m. He is the player that Theo should really model himself on.

When you say 5.5m you have to remember at the time that was a lot of money the record at that time was Stan Collymore for 8.4m, with our own record signing being 7.5million at the time the signing of Bergkamp.

Even Pires was signed for 6million in 2000 at the time we beat of stiff competition from Real Madrid to sign him :eek:, the point is Wenger and Arsenal once did have the willingness to spend money and play ball with the big boys, as they all evolved we seemed to stay still in financial terms and we are paying the price heavily for it now.

Now we dont compete in terms of spending or in players. Move forward to 2012 and Robert Pires was to become available in his prime as he was, Real Madrid and Arsenal both go for him, first of all the player wouldnt even consider us, and secondly Madrid and every other top club in Europe would blow us out of the water with there bids. Footballs changed Arsenal just didnt change along with it.

As Jordanius said the board reigned in the spending on players and wages and somehow got Wenger doing what shouldnt be his job worrying about balancing the books, has Wenger become institutionalised by them to some degree I dont know, only one way to find out.

10-11-2012 02:16AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Im not the biggest fan of Stewart Robson but id actually buy into his theory that Steve Bould's impact has suddenly being minimalised at the club by Wenger.

What impact?

jordainius · 10-11-2012 02:20AM

Marty McFly wrote: »

As Jordanius said the board reigned in the spending on players and wages and somehow got Wenger doing what shouldnt be his job worrying about balancing the books, has Wenger become institutionalised by them to some degree I dont know, only one way to find out.

I believe he has been to an extent unfortunately. One of the reasons I don't want to see Wenger go is that if Arsenal had a new manager, that manager would still be expected to work under the same financial constraints imposed by our profit driven board. We'd still have the same problems in terms of buying and keeping our best players. So sacking him would change very little in my opinion.

Marty McFly · 10-11-2012 02:29AM

jordainius wrote: »

I believe he has been to an extent unfortunately. One of the reasons I don't want to see Wenger go is that if Arsenal had a new manager, that manager would still be expected to work under the same financial constraints imposed by our profit driven board. We'd still have the same problems in terms of buying and keeping our best players. So sacking him would change very little in my opinion.

Yeh while I do agree maybe just maybe though if a new manager were to come in instead of worying about the finances at the club would he push the board more and take them out of there comfrot zone instead of what Wenger has seem to become there yes man?

Ideally id like to see changes at board level really and leave Wenger in place and see if he can change with the board telling him to spend money and someone instead of Gazidis sorting contracts and making sure we keep hold of our best players. I think one way or another the club needs to change its policys in terms of recruitment and contracts.

But all this alone does not change the problems we seem to have on the pitch of motivating our players and our tactics at times they can be perfect others we look a nervous, head down shambles and that alone falls on Wengers head.

10-11-2012 02:32AM

Deleted User wrote: »

What impact?

I think Bould implemented some defensive strategies the first few games which hav since seen a return to type A Arsenal who are incredibly naive at the back. I had seen improvement and shape in Arsenals defence i hadnt previously seen and tactics from corners which normally would go to waste

Now it could be a case of Diaby's absence (as he covers the bit of ground) though i would think its more a case of Wenger disagreeing with Bould's input

10-11-2012 02:36AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I think Bould implemented some defensive strategies the first few games which hav since seen a return to type A Arsenal who are incredibly naive at the back. I had seen improvement and shape in Arsenals defence i hadnt previously seen and tactics from corners which normally would go to waste

Now it could be a case of Diaby's absence (as he covers the bit of ground) though i would think its more a case of Wenger disagreeing with Bould's input

I said at the time and stick by it, the 3 clean sheets at the start of the season were against firstly a couple of teams who had no interest in anything but sitting back and a very disjointed Liverpool team. Stoke and Sunderland have scored the least and joint-second-least goals in the PL this season, Liverpool look to be gelling a little bit now.
Also in the first 2 games despite dominating possession we created little and in both matches could have conceded as we allowed the opposition a chance or 2 with the little ball they did have. Liverpool was different in that we let them have the ball knowing they'd do **** all with it. I saw little to be confident about in the first few matches, we looked blunt against a team with a bus in defence and vulnerable on counters and set-pieces as always.

10-11-2012 02:41AM

Marty McFly wrote: »

When you say 5.5m you have to remember at the time that was a lot of money the record at that time was Stan Collymore for 8.4m, with our own record signing being 7.5million at the time the signing of Bergkamp.

Even Pires was signed for 6million in 2000 at the time we beat of stiff competition from Real Madrid to sign him :eek:, the point is Wenger and Arsenal once did have the willingness to spend money and play ball with the big boys, as they all evolved we seemed to stay still in financial terms and we are paying the price heavily for it now.

Now we dont compete in terms of spending or in players. Move forward to 2012 and Robert Pires was to become available in his prime as he was, Real Madrid and Arsenal both go for him, first of all the player wouldnt even consider us, and secondly Madrid and every other top club in Europe would blow us out of the water with there bids. Footballs changed Arsenal just didnt change along with it.

As Jordanius said the board reigned in the spending on players and wages and somehow got Wenger doing what shouldnt be his job worrying about balancing the books, has Wenger become institutionalised by them to some degree I dont know, only one way to find out.

Overmars came from Ajax but was a steal at 5.5m even back in 1997 imo considering Ravanelli cost 7.5 and was a considerable flop. By the way Shearer was actually world and british record at 15m in 1996 but i think Fat Ronaldo went to Inter from Barca that summer of 97 for 18m. United spent big money on Poborsky and Jordi Cruyff after Euro 96 so when you take that into consideration also.

As for Pires i had resigned to losing him to Madrid and then I thought we may be getting a player with a bad attitude with his last minute u-turn. How wrong i was. Robbie is a legend and always will be. Killed me to see him stretchered off in 2002. Glad he went on to win both the league 04 and cup in 03 to someway makeup for it. 6m when you think of the money other clubs spent on absolute crap before and after i felt we got him for a good price

10-11-2012 02:47AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I said at the time and stick by it, the 3 clean sheets at the start of the season were against firstly a couple of teams who had no interest in anything but sitting back and a very disjointed Liverpool team. Stoke and Sunderland have scored the least and joint-second-least goals in the PL this season, Liverpool look to be gelling a little bit now.
Also in the first 2 games despite dominating possession we created little and in both matches could have conceded as we allowed the opposition a chance or 2 with the little ball they did have. Liverpool was different in that we let them have the ball knowing they'd do **** all with it. I saw little to be confident about in the first few matches, we looked blunt against a team with a bus in defence and vulnerable on counters and set-pieces as always.

Stoke have always caused Arsenal a threat up front with the aerial ball so you cant just diminish their attack like that. Crouch has been many the thorn in our side and even Walters gave Mertsacker more of a runaround when Germany cruised v Ireland recently. Attacking wise yes we were blunt but defending wise we were reasonably solid. I felt there was a bit more composure discipline and shape to our defense but Wenger is not to gone on the idea of a team just getting rid of the ball in desperation rather then playing suicidal football in your own box

Marty McFly · 10-11-2012 02:50AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Overmars came from Ajax but was a steal at 5.5m even back in 1997 imo considering Ravanelli cost 7.5 and was a considerable flop. By the way Shearer was actually world and british record at 15m in 1996 but i think Fat Ronaldo went to Inter from Barca that summer of 97 for 18m. United spent big money on Poborsky and Jordi Cruyff after Euro 96 so when you take that into consideration also.

As for Pires i had resigned to losing him to Madrid and then I thought we may be getting a player with a bad attitude with his last minute u-turn. How wrong i was. Robbie is a legend and always will be. Killed me to see him stretchered off in 2002. Glad he went on to win both the league 04 and cup in 03 to someway makeup for it. 6m when you think of the money other clubs spent on absolute crap before and after i felt we got him for a good price

Ah yeh I forgot about Shearer

my bad, although in my defence Collymore was the record before that at 8.5 million in the EPL I never mentioned Europe at that time the Serie A was the best league in the world. But my point still stands we did once spend money on players on a par with our rivals as time we moved on we stayed still other clubs didnt and you have to remember Overmars was seen as a risk when we signed him.

As for Pires he is a legend and was a great signing but we all know now days if a player had a choice between us and Real Madrid we wouldnt get a second thought, unless they were 17 looking to make a name for themselves and get ridiciously over inflated wage based on potential.

gosplan · 10-11-2012 07:31AM

'Wenger is only concerned with finance'?

'Wenger is minimalising Bould's influence'?

Seriously, cop on people.

emergingstar · 10-11-2012 09:34AM

gosplan wrote: »

'Wenger is only concerned with finance'?

'Wenger is minimalising Bould's influence'?

Seriously, cop on people.

First decent post in a couple of pages. What were people drinking last night

emergingstar · 10-11-2012 09:39AM

In other news diaby out till the new year it seems
Back just in time for us to put all our faith in him during the next transfer window

jordainius · 10-11-2012 10:57AM

gosplan wrote: »

'Wenger is only concerned with finance'?

'Wenger is minimalising Bould's influence'?

Seriously, cop on people.

Cop on yourself!

I don't think anyone said he "only" cares about finance. You cannot deny that he does consider it very important, he talks about it a lot. My own point was he shouldn't care about the finance side of things at all, his only conern should be the footballing side of things. A manager should be pressuring the board to invest as much as possible into wages and transfer funds, when Wenger had a board who were willing to take a hit financially, we won trophies.

Since the stadium move, his focus has been on a long term plan, he wants to leave behind him a club which has the stadium mortgage cleared, and a club that can fund itself in a similar way to United prior the Glazer takeover. This isn't a bad thing as such, I believe he is well on course to securing that legacy. But I also believe that a manager shouldn't give a crap about the financial state of a club; that's what the board are there for. Let the board worry about the money and let Wenger worry about the team. He is pretty much a board member himself at this stage, he now is happy to build the best team possible while turning in a profit. Whereas pre 2004 the club generally made a loss in the transfer market. And when players were sold the board let Wenger put that money straight back into the team (Anelka's money was used to buy Henry and Suker in 99 and the £30m Overmars/Petit money was used to buy Lauren, Pires and Wiltord).

Wenger still cares about the footballing side as much as he ever did, but he has undeniably given greater priority to the financial side of things post 2005 than pre 2005. As I've said, thats the boards problem, not his. I'm not saying the board should give him an open chequebook, but it is their job to put as much money as they possibly can into the club without hurting the club (like Ridsdale and Leeds), and to be willing to take the odd hit every now and then. Our board aren't doing this since the stadium move, all they care about is profit, their own lavish salaries and boasting about the financial reserves and turnover at AGM's. Wengers failing is he's happy to go along with this.

As for the rumours about Bould, I can't say they're true as much as I can't say they're not true. There's evidence to suggest there might be something to it but there isn't enough evidence to conclude there definitly is something to it. Nobody can know for definite. Wenger does strike me as a stubborn man though!

tayto lover · 10-11-2012 11:41AM

Well I don't really care who the manager is as long as we get a team who go onto the field of play with the intention of winning, getting really stuck in and giving it their best shot.

There are many times over the last number of years that we didn't see that and that is something nobody can deny. Last Sat against Man Utd was one of those times. In fact it reminded me of the Sunderland game last year. There was no motivation used on the players. They went out a beaten team. Some of them had more pride in the United jersey than they had in their own.

I couldn't care less if Fr Ted was the manager as long as the team went into their games to give it their best and with the intention of winning trophies.

I would agree that the present manager seems to be motivated more by finances than results. BUT we don't know what pressures have been heaped upon him by our beloved Board. I know a lot of true London based fans, who I stood beside for a number of years on the North Bank in Highbury, and who are very unhappy with the current situation at the club and have been for some time.

greendom · 10-11-2012 11:46AM

jordainius wrote: »

The financial situation is not entirely an excuse. Wengers problem is that he's making the financial side of things his problem, he's on the same page as the board and the board will repay this by having absolute faith in him.

He shouldn't give a **** about the financial side of things. The finances are the boards problem, Wengers job is to assemble the best team he possibly can and to keep his best players, something he did fairly well for his first 8/9 years. He should be putting pressure on the board to make money available to buy players and he should be demanding that players of a certain calibre get paid the type of contract that will keep them happy.

The problem with Wenger is that somewhere along the line he became way too concerned with the financial side of things and placed way too much emphasis on youth to the point that he was willing to let our best players leave as he believed in promoting good young prospects at the first opportunity in order to not "kill" that young player as he has said many times over the years.

This is a man who in his first 8 years kept Seaman, Dixon, Winterburn, Keown, Adams, Bould and Bergkamp at the club as long as he possibly could, regardless of their age and the fact that he has promising young players waiting in the wings. Back then, it was up to these young players to work their way onto the team, there was no such thing as pushing Martin Keown out the door in order to aid Matthew Upson's development for example.

This is also a man who fought tooth and nail to keep wantaway players at the club (Patrick Vieira wanted to leave loads of times), but since 2005 the emphasis has no longer been on retaining the best players, it has been on taking the money as soon as the player decides he wants to go.

Wenger is capable of spending crazy (signed 9 players I think the summer before the 1998 double and went nuts in 2001 to sign Campbell, Inamoto, van Bronckhorst, Wright and Jeffers for big money on big contracts with a massive signing on fee in Campbells case- again a busy summer led to a double).

The problem with Wenger since 2005 is that he's all too happy to operate just how the board want him to, which makes him unsackable as they have a manager who wont put pressure on them to loosen the purse strings.

For the record; I don't want him gone despite my criticisms of him.

I think you're under-estimating the impact the new stadium build had on the cub's finances. Wenger had to work within the constraints of that new financial reality and was happy to accept the challenge. That meant completely redesigning how the club worked in the transfer market and it has meant a compromise on success on the field as well. This was done for the long term future of the club and it should be assured now. Whoever takes over from Wenger will be grateful to him for the work he did with the board through these fallow years.

emergingstar · 10-11-2012 11:49AM

I think wenger will spend money, surprised it hasn't come up here but it came out after the agm that the board vetoed wengers move for loris

I wonder what other players they vetoed too

Soups123 · 10-11-2012 11:52AM

emergingstar wrote: »

I think wenger will spend money, surprised it hasn't come up here but it came out after the agm that the board vetoed wengers move for loris

I wonder what other players they vetoed too

'If' that's true Wenger should have walked. The board shouldn't be involved in player choice

tayto lover · 10-11-2012 11:56AM

Soups123 wrote: »

'If' that's true Wenger should have walked. The board shouldn't be involved in player choice

But the Board finance such transactions so they are involved.

10-11-2012 11:58AM

emergingstar wrote: »

I think wenger will spend money, surprised it hasn't come up here but it came out after the agm that the board vetoed wengers move for loris

I wonder what other players they vetoed too

Would we want Tottenham's number 2 goalkeeper, who i might add cant dislodge a 40 year old, now?

10-11-2012 12:00PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Would we want Tottenham's number 2 goalkeeper, who i might add cant dislodge a 40 year old, now?

Wouldn't mind the 25 year old french captain with 42 caps as a goalkeeper, which has been a problem position for us for a long time. If we were in for him its a no brainer really.

emergingstar · 10-11-2012 12:02PM

Soups123 wrote: »

'If' that's true Wenger should have walked. The board shouldn't be involved in player choice

But it's up to the board to release the funds so I don't think he should have walked

Ya have to wonder what else they vetoed, wenger is the greatest arsenal manager of this era, surely he looked at our midfield and said we can't rely on diaby, rosicky,and jack is only coming back from injury

My guess is he went to the board looking for money for a player, the board said you have only so much, so we try negotiate, we can't get him for that price, the board won't up there price so the deal collapses

Then wenger comes out in ye media and says there is no value and that we have players coming back from injury.

emergingstar · 10-11-2012 12:06PM

tipp_Gunner wrote: »

Would we want Tottenham's number 2 goalkeeper, who i might add cant dislodge a 40 year old, now?

Loris or mannone????

tayto lover · 10-11-2012 12:10PM

Whoever does the team talk to motivate the players (if they should need to be motivated at all) before they leave the dressingroom should walk or be pushed because last Saturday he clearly wasn't up to it, and not for the first time.
I have seen a lot worse Arsenal sides in my time give far better displays and play with pride.

10-11-2012 12:12PM

AdamD wrote: »

Wouldn't mind the 25 year old french captain with 42 caps as a goalkeeper, which has been a problem position for us for a long time. If we were in for him its a no brainer really.

emergingstar wrote: »

Loris or mannone????

tbh my remark was more tongue in cheek. Should have put an emoticon at the end of it. LLoris is a good goalkeeper in fairness and while Friedel is playing some stuff, surely to god the French Number 1 could dislodge him?

Arsenal Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 12/13 MOD POST #232

Comments